AutoCAD resale ruling a messy win for first-sale doctrine

Despite Autodesk's claim it has never "sold" a copy of AutoCAD to anyone, a …

Autodesk has lost (again) its bid to shut down eBay resellers of its terrifically expensive AutoCAD software—but the issues raised by the case aren't anywhere close to being settled.

The dispute arose when Autodesk was trolling eBay for sales of its software in an effort to cut down on piracy and counterfeit copies of AutoCAD. It found Tim Vernor, a full-time eBay reseller, who was offering AutoCAD far below the price of the newest version from Autodesk. The software maker managed to have Vernor's eBay access cut off for a month in 2007, and eventually sued him for copyright infringement in a federal court.

But Vernor's copies were't counterfeit; it emerged during the court case that he had obtained them from Seattle architecture firm Cardwell/Thomas Associates (CTA), which sold them in 2007 along with a bunch of old office equipment.

This didn't matter to Autodesk; the company asserts that it controlled the software anyway because it had only "licensed" it to customers under specific terms that eliminated the right to resell the software. US law typically gives a buyer the right to do what he or she likes with a product, including selling it to others (read our primer on the "first sale" doctrine).

As the judge sums up Autodesk's argument, "Autodesk believes that it still owns the AutoCAD packages in Mr. Vernor’s possession. It contends that it never transferred ownership of the AutoCAD packages to CTA. Indeed, in Autodesk’s view, it never transfers ownership of AutoCAD packages to anyone."

So did Vernor have the right to sell the copies?

Judge Richard Jones ruled in Vernor's favor in 2008. With discovery completed and both sides pressing the judge for summary judgment, Jones ruled again this week—again for Vernor.

One new wrinkle has emerged over the course of the case: CTA had actually agreed way back in 2002 to "destroy all copies of AutoCAD software in the AutoCAD packages that it [later] transferred to Mr. Vernor in 2007" as part of a discounted AutoCAD upgrade. So Autodesk went after CTA as well and obtained a consent decree in which the architecture firm "agreed that it had breached its promise to destroy the AutoCAD packages, and that it had transferred those packages to Mr. Vernor in violation of Autodesk’s copyright." Whoops.

Messy justice

But back to Vernor. Judge Jones ruled this week that Autodesk had in fact licensed its software, but that this was immaterial; what mattered was whether the license "transferred ownership" (more like buying a book) or was a "mere license" (more like renting a movie).

Although groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation called the decision a major one for their side, Judge Jones made clear that the issue was swamplike in its murkiness. The Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction Jones is under, has issued various (and contradictory) ways of thinking about the difference between a "transfer of ownership" and a "mere license."

Jones was unable to reconcile the competing precedents, and so he decided the issue based the "oldest precedent among conflicting opinions from three-judge Ninth Circuit panels." That precedent favored the idea that Autodesk had essentially transferred ownership when someone purchased an AutoCAD license; that in turn triggered "first sale" rights to resell the software; that in turn vindicated Vernor's eBay auctions.

If this sounds like the messiest form of justice, it is. Jones even admits that if he had to follow more recent precedent, Autodesk would win the case.

Given the conflicting opinions and the fact that the Ninth Circuit is currently considering two similar cases (one about reselling "promo" CDs, the other involving game developer Blizzard), EFF and others hope that the Ninth Circuit will soon provide more clarity.

Killing software devs or killing libraries?

Both sides in the case resorted to apocalyptic rhetoric in making their cases. Autodesk told the court, for example, that "this court's interpretation of 'owner' will harm consumers and software producers alike. It suggests, for example, that software prices would rise if producers had to confront the possibility of resale, and that resale promotes piracy."

In other words, getting rid of used gaming and CD stores (the "secondary market") would actually lower prices for consumers. Vernor was skeptical of the claim, telling the court that "Autodesk’s preferred interpretation of 'owner' would give copyright holders of all stripes the ability to destroy secondary markets for their works by the simple expedient of declaring transfers of copies of their works to be 'licenses' rather than sales. For example, a book publisher could transfer its wares pursuant to licenses retaining title and barring resale or use by other parties, effectively eliminating not only the secondhand market, but preventing a library from lending the book as well."

Which do you want—the death of libraries or the crippling effects of software piracy? Judge Jones saw the question as a false dichotomy, chiding both sides. "Piracy depends on the number of people willing to engage in piracy, and a pirate is presumably just as happy to unlawfully duplicate software purchased directly from Autodesk as he is to copy software purchased from a reseller like Mr. Vernor," he wrote.

As for the death of the secondary market and the end of libraries, "Mr. Vernor’s fear of the destruction of established resale markets also seems misplaced. The court notes, for example, that widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates."

129 Reader Comments

...widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates.

Is this supposed to be a joke? It most certainly has. DRM in online music stores and pretty much all non-pc digital content (eg XBLA, kindle). While it seems to be going away slowly, it's most certainly still there. I kinda doubt Steam allows resale. If the industry giants had their way, no one would be able to resell anything. Heck, Amazon thought it was OK to even delete consumers' bought content to avoid copyright trouble.

Not to mention the music industry has tried on several occasions to introduce the 'one-time-read' CD/DVD, remember? The type that would oxidize after a few days and thus "be a perfect medium for distributing promotion material".

It suggests, for example, that software prices would rise if producers had to confront the possibility of resale, and that resale promotes piracy."

So how does resale of software promote piracy(Arr)? One would think that reselling of older software at a lower price would reduce the amount of piracy as it lowers the barrier to acquire legitimate software. It's kind of funny anyway since Autodesk gives away limited versions of it's software.

"Autodesk told the court, for example, that "this court's interpretation of 'owner' will harm consumers and software producers alike. It suggests, for example, that software prices would rise if producers had to confront the possibility of resale, and that resale promotes piracy."

I don't understand this.

How is someone owning something causing harm to consumers? The whole free enterprise system is based at least partially on the concept that someone can own something. The whole concept of buy-sell is based on ownership. It wasn't until the advent of these licenses that the consumer damage was done in trying to re-interpet the ownership principal in such a manner as to remove, decrease, or deny, consumer rights in favor of profit for companies and corporation.

How does it harm software producers? Software producers aren't special although they want to think they are. They are like any other entity selling/marketing a product, they offer a product and the consumer buys it plain and simple. they aren't renting it out, they are actually selling it and then trying to impose rental concepts after the fact of sale. When we go into someplace like Best Buy or some other store and buy a software title, when you get to the checkout, is there anyone there that tells you you are renting? No there isn't, its rung up as a sale.

Its sold plain and simple, you bought it, you own it. After all you didn't sign any rental agreement at the checkout did you? No you didn't, they sold it to you where you bought it and didn't require any agreement to a rental type arangement when you plunked your money down. It doesn't matter what the licensing agreement says after you open the box or even before you open the box, when you plunked your money down at the checkout a sale was made and you own it, and any license agreement that comes along with it that denys that ownership in my opinion is moot in terms of ownership because you bought it, paid your money for it, did not agree to a "rental type arangement" at the time of checkout, and the place where you bought it recorded it as a sale - you own it plain and simple.

The law even recognizes that you own it. Say for example you bought a few hundered dollars worth of software at some shop, actually went in and paid for it yourself physically. On your way out of the shop you set your package of goodies down to take a call on your cell phone and someone walks by and swipes your package. You call the police and the theif is apprehended. Do the police go to the software producer and involve them as a victim in the case? No, of course not, your the victim and the reason your the victim is because the law recognizes that things in your posession that you have purchased are owned by you.

...widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates.

Is this supposed to be a joke? It most certainly has. DRM in online music stores and pretty much all non-pc digital content (eg XBLA, kindle). While it seems to be going away slowly, it's most certainly still there. I kinda doubt Steam allows resale. If the industry giants had their way, no one would be able to resell anything. Heck, Amazon thought it was OK to even delete consumers' bought content to avoid copyright trouble.

Not to mention the music industry has tried on several occasions to introduce the 'one-time-read' CD/DVD, remember? The type that would oxidize after a few days and thus "be a perfect medium for distributing promotion material".

This comment was edited by Renx on October 07, 2009 11:57

As someone who has to Deal with Autodesk let me point out that DRM on music is nothing on what Autodesk likes to pull with their contracts, The licensing is around 60k per license(seat) per year.

And they will come in and audit on a regular basis to make sure their interests are looked after.

The best part is that this is not unusual for the CAD software manufacturers. So if you are a programmer and you want to get RICH make Cad software and give it away free to Engeneering schools. Once they get hooked on your product they will demand it in the workplace and you can then charge 30K a year per seat and still be a better deal than autodesk.

Originally posted by mitEj: The best part is that this is not unusual for the CAD software manufacturers. So if you are a programmer and you want to get RICH make Cad software and give it away free to Engeneering schools. Once they get hooked on your product they will demand it in the workplace and you can then charge 30K a year per seat and still be a better deal than autodesk.

That happens in law schools. Westlaw and Lexis will compete to get students hooked on their systems, all with the hope of creating demand in the workforce, and thus making the mint that is passed on to clients.

I'm not sure I agree with the ruling in this case though. I certainly think that Guy Smiley here shouldn't be punished as he acquired his copies of AutoCad through a legitmiate transactions and had no reason to be aware of the restrictions. His buyers shouldn't be punished either. The achitectural firm, on the ther hand, should be liable for the difference between what a retail sale and the eBay sale for each sold copy. Either that, or they pay the difference betwen the discounted upgrade and a non-discounted upgrade. That wouldn't go the the issue of licensing on broad terms, but I think that a software dev should be able to "buy" license limitations, which the ruling (as presented in the article, I should be working and don't want to read the opinion) seems to be hinting against.

Originally posted by mitEj: The best part is that this is not unusual for the CAD software manufacturers. So if you are a programmer and you want to get RICH make Cad software and give it away free to Engeneering schools. Once they get hooked on your product they will demand it in the workplace and you can then charge 30K a year per seat and still be a better deal than autodesk.

That happens in law schools. Westlaw and Lexis will compete to get students hooked on their systems, all with the hope of creating demand in the workforce, and thus making the mint that is passed on to clients.

I'm not sure I agree with the ruling in this case though. I certainly think that Guy Smiley here shouldn't be punished as he acquired his copies of AutoCad through a legitmiate transactions and had no reason to be aware of the restrictions. His buyers shouldn't be punished either. The achitectural firm, on the ther hand, should be liable for the difference between what a retail sale and the eBay sale for each sold copy. Either that, or they pay the difference betwen the discounted upgrade and a non-discounted upgrade. That wouldn't go the the issue of licensing on broad terms, but I think that a software dev should be able to "buy" license limitations, which the ruling (as presented in the article, I should be working and don't want to read the opinion) seems to be hinting against.

From what I read that is what is going to happen here.

I do think that the model of "we don't sell it, just license it " should be looked at.

Also even if you buy the media you can't run it without a license, either floating or license file (which expires every year) so they can still make $ off of these people they just loose the crazy initial amount of $ for the media (I don't know how much it is per disk but if they were printed on platinum they could still make a profit)

I need to post an update. They are still crazy expensive but I got my price point wrong the one i was quoting was for Catia (an Automotive Cad suite) autodesk (mechanical, or Inventor we use both so 2x the price to 12k ) is only 6K not 60K

Software licenses are never going to go away since software is copyrighted. You certainly own the media it's purchased on and that one particular copy, but unless you're running it off the DVD, you'll have to copy it to your hard drive. That's why software licenses exist (and why they'll always exist), and why they only exist for computer software and not console games, at least as long consoles software is sold on and run off of physical media. Certainly not all the terms in every license are enforceable, but most people aren't going to test every questionable term in a license agreement: the legal fees are just too costly and there is a risk of losing.

Originally posted by indeego:So as a small business owner, is there a resource where I can buy other businesses old software? Can I get Office 2003 from companies that have moved on to O2007?

Yes, but you have a couple problems:

It's extremely difficult to find software on eBay, Craigslist, etc that is actually a secondhand copy rather than a pirated copy (there are a couple orders of magnitude more of the latter than the former online).

The other issue is that like in the case in the article, a lot opf people when they're buying software buy it as upgrades, which means they should really be holding on to the original licences, since an upgrade is only valid alongside an original licence somewhere down the line. I suppose this isn't really an issue for you if you buy in good faith, but it affects the sale.

We now have a clear indubitable ruling on one of the issues at debate in the Psystar case.

It is clear from this ruling that the buyer of a retail copy of software, including OSX, is the owner in the sense of Title 17 S117, and so has the right to make further copies or authorize others to make those further copies, provided they are essential to use of the software with a machine.

That is, a machine. Not any particular machine or brand of machine, just a machine.

There are now two rulings which affirm this, Softman and the present one. This is over. Companies do not have to sell copies at retail under the usual terms and conditions, but if they do, the buyer participates in a purchase and sale transaction of a copy. He does not simply acquire a license to use. Case closed.

Originally posted by Ally:We now have a clear indubitable ruling on one of the issues at debate in the Psystar case.

It is clear from this ruling that the buyer of a retail copy of software, including OSX, is the owner in the sense of Title 17 S117, and so has the right to make further copies or authorize others to make those further copies, provided they are essential to use of the software with a machine.

That is, a machine. Not any particular machine or brand of machine, just a machine.

There are now two rulings which affirm this, Softman and the present one. This is over. Companies do not have to sell copies at retail under the usual terms and conditions, but if they do, the buyer participates in a purchase and sale transaction of a copy. He does not simply acquire a license to use. Case closed.

Wait. So you just ignore the fact there are multiple precedents, and the admission by the judge himself that this is still incredibly murky and ill-defined? While I would love to be in the utopia you describe (as long as software prices don't shoot through the roof, which is doubtful), you can't just ignore the fact that there are other rulings out there that, if they were consulted, would have led to a different decision (as the article states). This is far from over.

It's extremely difficult to find software on eBay, Craigslist, etc that is actually a secondhand copy rather than a pirated copy (there are a couple orders of magnitude more of the latter than the former online).

Is there a legal, legit location where said software is available, then? I of course want to stay legal, but I don't mind running one or two versions behind the curve. Everyone wins. The original buyer can see some of their investment back, and we pay less for software while getting a stable environment to run off of. Microsoft wins because we supply their customers with added value (although I'm sure MS would much rather have us pay full retail.)

The point may be moot, I recently bought a shrinkwrapped Office 2007 Pro off of ebay for $40. It passed Windows Genuine Advantage and everything seems legit four months later. This software originally cost $400+ upon its release. Why bother even getting software upon release if the value goes down so rapidly?

Originally posted by Ally:We now have a clear indubitable ruling on one of the issues at debate in the Psystar case. It is clear from this ruling that the buyer of a retail copy of software, including OSX, is the owner in the sense of Title 17 S117, and so has the right to make further copies or authorize others to make those further copies, provided they are essential to use of the software with a machine.

No it doesn't. All this case sets in precedent is resale rights.

quote:

That precedent favored the idea that Autodesk had essentially transferred ownership when someone purchased an AutoCAD license; that in turn triggered "first sale" rights to resell the software; that in turn vindicated Vernor's eBay auctions.

Psytar is doing nothing even close. They aren't reselling OS X, they are modifying and making copies.

quote:

That is, a machine. Not any particular machine or brand of machine, just a machine.

There are now two rulings which affirm this, Softman and the present one. This is over.

Did you even read the article?

quote:

Jones even admits that if he had to follow more recent precedent, Autodesk would win the case.

quote:

Companies do not have to sell copies at retail under the usual terms and conditions, but if they do, the buyer participates in a purchase and sale transaction of a copy. He does not simply acquire a license to use. Case closed.

Not true. They acquire a copy that is fully protected under copyright law. The license merely grants them the right to make copies, and if they disagree with that license then copyright comes into full effect. Which has no bearing on first sale because we are talking about copyright.

We have as first evidence the GPL, specifically the end use clause where a user's right to a copy are terminated:

quote:

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

This is relevant because Psystar is both modifying and propogating a work covered by copyright, which means if they were using Linux their ability to use the software would be terminated. Given this isn't Linux but Mac OS X, their ability to use the software would STILL be terminated because the same copyright applies to both.

EDIT: More from the GPL on basic rights

quote:

. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

I was an AutoDesk reseller in the early 80's. I trained on version 1.40. The most "powerful" AutoCad system was an 8086 with a Tecmar Graphics Master ISA card installed. Back then, the Houston Instrument plotters we sold were far more expensive than AutoCad and the PC to run it on.

AutoCad also had no DRM or protection of ANY kind back then. Things changed with Release 9 and I quit selling or supporting the product shortly thereafter.

People did indeed copy the heck out of AutoCad. I had a manufacturing client that had their engineers take copies home to install on personal PCs. Their logic was that if the user was at home, he/she should be able to work there. They argued they weren't violating the license as it was the same users, just on different machines. This was not an isolated case.

About that same time (1982-84), I was sued by someone I had written an inventory program for. I wrote and compiled the application on their existing backoffice PCs, they paid me, and everyone was happy. About a year later, the owner bought new PCs that were incompatible with the runtime on the original hardware. He called me and demanded I recode for his new machines. I told him I would but I would have to sell him a runtime license that worked on the new hardware. I didn't create the runtime, I just resold it. The license was $500, my cost was $324. I offered it at that cost and stated I would eat the 2-3 days recode/recompile time. The client then sued me for the entire $1800 he'd spent over a year earlier. The judge listened to both sides, read up on software licenses, and threw out the case. The client had to pay MY legal costs, as a matter of fact.

So, I have been on both sides of this. I created my own DRM code that prevented the software I created from running on any machine other than the one it was installed on. My lawyer advised me to remove that function from my code due to potential liability. I did. I also quit writing accounting systems by '88-89. Too much of a hassle.

My personal feeling is that if I bought it, I own it, and I should be able to sell it, should I choose to do so. Unfortunately, the real world is not that simple.

Originally posted by indeego:The point may be moot, I recently bought a shrinkwrapped Office 2007 Pro off of ebay for $40. It passed Windows Genuine Advantage and everything seems legit four months later.

You bought counterfeit. It happens. A lot of them look really, really legitimate... but aren't. Sometimes you can find a typo on the box, sometimes if you're very familiar with the install process you can spot that it looks different from what it should look like.

But yeah, the odds are incredibly low that you actually found a legitimate shrinkwrapped copy of Office 2007 Pro for $40.

Just for the sake of argument using some of the anti-RIAA rhetoric I hear all the time:

It's just software for pete's sake... just sell it for 99cents on some website and be done with it. Once you buy it, it's yours to do with as you please: copy it and distribute it to your friends. It's not stealing, right? It's not like I take a copy out of someone's possession and then distribute it. It's retarded to think that a company should be able to keep making money off of their software once it's made.

Originally posted by indeego:Is there a legal, legit location where said software is available, then?

Your best bet would probably be at a bankruptcy auction. Those are obviously pretty hit-or-miss, but if it's for a business that has office PCs you might be able to find a lot with some software in it. You could try calling an auctioneer that does a lot of liquidations and see what their policy is for software.

The only fact I see in this case that favors Autodesk is that the company (CTA) bought an upgrade license, and in the upgrade agreement you cant sell your old copies, which makes sense - in order to qualify for the upgrade, you must keep the original license (and any other license that license depends on) in your possession. If you don't like the upgrade rules, buy a new full copy and then go sell your old full copy.

The idea that they can forbid software resales isn't going to fly here. I agree that older versions of the software compete with current versions, in the same way the Beatles still compete with whatever the flavor of the month is right now. If you want people to buy your new product innovate, don't just slap a new (awful) WPF-based UI on it and call it a new product.

Of course, this is why Autodesk pushes subscription - so you don't really own anything, you just pay a yearly fee to use their software, and you can run whatever AutoCAD version you want (as long as the entire office is on the same version).

We're seeing the death of the first sale doctrine in the rise of cloud computing and subscription services. Buy an e-book for your Kindle. Good luck reselling that unless you crack the DRM and offer an illegal, but ethical to me, file for sale.

CAD services rely on license fees, after-sale support, and upgrades for their income. Autodesk has always been a dick about old-revision copies and aggressively pursues pirates (often universities). Some use a hardware dongle (e.g. Lightwave), even though the cracks for those come out as frequently as any updates. AutoCAD has gotten cheap, not including specialty overlays, but other programs still command serious $/seat. If you don't do a lot of fancy parametric or 3-D work their even cheaper AutoCAD LT works fine too (I use that). We mostly use Pro Engineer and that still racks up big $/seat when you throw in a few modules above the essentials, support contract, and updates.

I need to post an update. They are still crazy expensive but I got my price point wrong the one i was quoting was for Catia (an Automotive Cad suite) autodesk (mechanical, or Inventor we use both so 2x the price to 12k ) is only 6K not 60K

My bad on being confused.

You are still getting screwed at those prices. Autodesk Mechanical is included in the inventor suite. The initial purchase price is retail ~6k, but you can easily get it for significantly less, I think we paid ~$3500. Then the yearly per seat cost is only for tech support and software upgrades and is ~$1200. You don't need to subscribe ever, only if you want tech support and to get the next release automatically.

I am no fan of autodesk, even though I make my living using their software, but at least get your facts straight.

A lot of these problems seem to be of the software developer's making. I'll fully admit that I'm not positive what all goes into developing, say, a new operating system or CAD software, or 3D animation rendering software. But the problem seems to be basic to that with all rightsholders currently: the people who want to do the buying are not seeing the same value out of the product as what the original sellers are asking.

I would love to run the current version of Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. However, I cannot afford to drop the several hundred dollars that would be required for that. The demand of my freelance design work is not high enough to accommodate their costs. As such, I stick with the older versions that I obtained through college.

I've never purchased a stand-alone version of Windows at any time. I cannot bring myself to drop $600 (as some of the previous releases first cost when hitting the shelves) for an operating system that I know will require at least one service pack to be in full working order and then still be obsolete in two to five years. My ideal perceived cost is that I should get at the very least one year for each hundred dollars I spend of full functionality and relevancy.

I do not wish to pirate software. I do not wish to go with only OEM versions or risk buying counterfeit copies that I in good faith believed were originals from third-party sites. I would love to buy full versions directly from the creators. However, it is just not financially possible with the prices the creators set. Until I can get what I feel is my money's worth, I have no choice but to buy second-hand, older versions, freeware alternatives, or just go without. None of these options give money to the developers, and the developers need to realize this.

Developers really need to open up lines of communication with their customers so that we may look at closing this gap between what they feel entitled to, and what the common man can afford.

Originally posted by Penforhire:We're seeing the death of the first sale doctrine in the rise of cloud computing and subscription services.

Important point there. While some tech enthusiasts like to hype the 'cloud', Don't forget what you lose by going to the cloud.. ownership of the software. This will be especially pertinent once cloud apps become fee based.

I have personally benefitted from this case, having purchased legit second hand 3D Studio Max licenses from craigslist. The late '90s, early 2000's versions are still quite capable for doing everything that I need, at a fraction of the price. Too many people forget the value of old software licenses and just throw them out or stash them in a dusty corner.

What I find ironic here is that Autocad can be pirated at all. It phones home to register your individual install, which is sensitive to many hardware changes including mirroring onto a new hard drive. If you don't register, it quits after 7 days.

Now here's the fishy part: there is always a crack available that let's you register by manual entry. Autocad calculates its secret code, you paste that into the crack, and it generates the required response.

Why that's fishy is that even public domain strong crypto is uncrackable (public key encryption). The universe would undergo heat death before you could factor the crack.

So how then can hackers promptly crack it that way? Do they have a personal hotline to God? Does a company like Autodesk really have such shitty security? Bad in the software (poor algos)? Bad in their own office (employee leaks)? With their budget and vigilance against piracy, it would seem unlikely.

I have been scratching my head a long time over this one, and here's what I think: Autodesk releases the cracks on purpose. They also don't chase down many pirates. They also don't want to spill the beans about their game.

Why would they do it? To control the market, maintain an effective monopoly, and prevent any real competition from emerging.

I use Autocad professionally as a small private contractor. I use it to convert files from my other CAD (very much not Autocad), into "genuine .dwg" files. Autocad doesn't do anything I need to do, except save files in their semi-proprietary format, which my big corporate clients all demand. Autocad is less than 1% of my software usage, but would be about 3 times more than the entire rest of my software budget, except that I pirate it annually in order to keep up with all those big corporate / government guys with their huge (tax funded) budgets.

And that is exactly how Autodesk wants it. I think they would rather I pirate Autocad than risk having me find and fund their competition. They don't want my little wallet to help rock the boat. I don't doubt the possibility that Autocad has phoned home, and they know someone is running pirated. I think that I don't show up in their radar as someone who uses it very much (low hours) or who can afford it. And I think they make more money charging huge prices to the big boys (the bulk of their market), and letting the little guys pirate, than they would if they lowered the price across the board, which would be their only other option.

So, with all that said, I find it quite entertaining whenever I hear about Autodesk chasing pirates. Seems more like they are just keeping up enough FUD to keep the big boys paying, and keep up sympathy as victims of piracy, which they absolutely depend on for their effective monopoly.

Originally posted by wordsworm:Just for the sake of argument using some of the anti-RIAA rhetoric I hear all the time:

It's just software for pete's sake... just sell it for 99cents on some website and be done with it. Once you buy it, it's yours to do with as you please: copy it and distribute it to your friends. It's not stealing, right? It's not like I take a copy out of someone's possession and then distribute it. It's retarded to think that a company should be able to keep making money off of their software once it's made.

Then you can provide quotes or citations for this rhetoric, please.

Based on the threads I've read here, what you're posting is a misrepresentation of what people who disagree with you write.

Even real estate has this kind of ambiguity. After all, the "real" in real estate is the same word as "royal". It's the king's land, and his subjects are just granted license to use it. Mind you, that sort of argument shows up in court and legislative debates all the time. Private property is one of the government's more complex and contentious functions.

...widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates.

Is this supposed to be a joke? It most certainly has. DRM in online music stores and pretty much all non-pc digital content (eg XBLA, kindle). While it seems to be going away slowly, it's most certainly still there. I kinda doubt Steam allows resale. If the industry giants had their way, no one would be able to resell anything. Heck, Amazon thought it was OK to even delete consumers' bought content to avoid copyright trouble.

Not to mention the music industry has tried on several occasions to introduce the 'one-time-read' CD/DVD, remember? The type that would oxidize after a few days and thus "be a perfect medium for distributing promotion material".

This comment was edited by Renx on October 07, 2009 11:57

As someone who has to Deal with Autodesk let me point out that DRM on music is nothing on what Autodesk likes to pull with their contracts, The licensing is around 60k per license(seat) per year.

And they will come in and audit on a regular basis to make sure their interests are looked after.

The best part is that this is not unusual for the CAD software manufacturers. So if you are a programmer and you want to get RICH make Cad software and give it away free to Engeneering schools. Once they get hooked on your product they will demand it in the workplace and you can then charge 30K a year per seat and still be a better deal than autodesk.

Fun huh.

What kind of piracy they looking at? Fuck Autodesk. I wouldn't buy it.

It suggests, for example, that software prices would rise if producers had to confront the possibility of resale, and that resale promotes piracy.

First, producers of any given product for sale to the public have to "confront the possibility of resale." AutoCAD is not an exception to the rule, much as the company would prefer to believe otherwise.

The problem for AutoCAD is that they've already priced their software as high as it can go while meeting a demand for their product that is presumed satisfactory (If AutoCAD isn't happy with the number of copies it sells it could remedy that to a major extent by cutting prices to stimulate demand.) Second, AutoCAD really needs to look at the fact that *nothing* promotes piracy as much as sky-high prices. Nothing. Sky-high prices also encourage a booming resale market, too. Obviously, resale of legitimately purchased software is not the same thing as piracy--not even close. AutoCAD's opinion that "resale promotes piracy" is merely an opinion foisted to mask the fact that more than likely the culprit here is to be found in AutoCAD's artificially high pricing.

Basically, AutoCAD wants to end resale of its products in order to support an artificially high pricing structure for its products. This is a double-edged sword for the company, no doubt about it. The higher the price for AutoCAD software, the lower the demand, the more used copies will be resold, and the more piracy will result. This is a lose-lose position for AutoCAD.

...widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates.

Is this supposed to be a joke? It most certainly has. DRM in online music stores and pretty much all non-pc digital content (eg XBLA, kindle). While it seems to be going away slowly, it's most certainly still there. I kinda doubt Steam allows resale. If the industry giants had their way, no one would be able to resell anything. Heck, Amazon thought it was OK to even delete consumers' bought content to avoid copyright trouble.

Not to mention the music industry has tried on several occasions to introduce the 'one-time-read' CD/DVD, remember? The type that would oxidize after a few days and thus "be a perfect medium for distributing promotion material".

I also believe that the RIAA has also tried to say that buying a used CD is piracy.

"Mr. Vernor’s fear of the destruction of established resale markets also seems misplaced. The court notes, for example, that widespread piracy of musical recordings from compact disks has not led the music industry to adopt a restrictive licensing regime like the one Autodesk advocates."

The court seems to be making the mistake that this is about piracy. The problem isn't that music or book publishers will start licensing their content to prevent piracy (how it would even accomplish that being an open question), the problem is that they could start licensing instead of selling to eliminate the secondhand market. And libraries for that matter. Consequently if we want to continue to have a secondhand market, or libraries as we know them, we can't allow copyrighted works to be distributed only under a "license" that does nothing but take away the rights people have.

I am not a lawyer, but this looks like a pretty open and shut case under the supremacy clause. Congress sets the balance between copyright owners and the public with "limited" copyright terms, first sale, fair use and so on. Licensing is basically a contract, which is state law, and which AutoCAD here is trying to use to upset the balance that Congress has struck. Since federal law has to win whenever something is a federal subject matter (where copyright clearly is), state law can't alter its substance. Imagine if a state passed a law prohibiting fair use and eliminating the federal first sale doctrine -- clearly invalid under the supremacy clause, right? But then how can a state assign that power to private parties through contract law?

There is also the question of whether a license like this is invalid for lack of a quid pro quo. I could only laugh if someone tried to claim that using software you've paid for isn't fair use, which means the license doesn't grant the user anything. It's totally one-sided. The user has no reason to agree to it, and the "you must click 'I agree' to continue" ought to have about as much effect as putting a roadblock in front of somebody's driveway that says "by removing this roadblock you agree to pay me a million dollars" and expecting that the court will actually allow you to collect the money.

I kinda sorta see Autodesk's point... if you sell the disks you still likely have use of the program in which case the situation does resemble piracy. If you bought the AutoCAD disks, installed them, and then sold the disks one week later would it be right? I think most here would say "no".

OTOH, Autodesk is being very weaselly with their use of the term "license". If they want to build a case around their belief that AutoCAD is strictly offered on a license basis then their business model should reflect that. It doesn't. Nothing prevents them from "renting" the software on a time/fee basis which would obviously conform to a license situation.

Car analogy: If I buy a car, I'm free to sell it. If I rent one from Hertz, I'm not free to sell it and, in most cases, not free to let anyone else even drive it. Autodesk wants to sell the car and then tell people they are only leasing it out like Hertz. I don't buy that and neither should the courts. Autodesk should change the way the charge for software if that's how they view a license.

I need to post an update. They are still crazy expensive but I got my price point wrong the one i was quoting was for Catia (an Automotive Cad suite) autodesk (mechanical, or Inventor we use both so 2x the price to 12k ) is only 6K not 60K

My bad on being confused.

You are still getting screwed at those prices. Autodesk Mechanical is included in the inventor suite. The initial purchase price is retail ~6k, but you can easily get it for significantly less, I think we paid ~$3500. Then the yearly per seat cost is only for tech support and software upgrades and is ~$1200. You don't need to subscribe ever, only if you want tech support and to get the next release automatically.

I am no fan of autodesk, even though I make my living using their software, but at least get your facts straight.

bflat

Those are the prices we have to budget for if purchasing gets them cheaper we don't see it. I don't use it at all I just make and support the systems and networks that they use it on and the servers they run the licensing from.

There is most likely a deal with them due to the # of licenses we use but that is kept from our department.

If any of you have purchased or installed software you have agreed to terms and conditions of a 'license'. You even had to do it to register on this forum. This is a legal and binding agreement. It will almost always include (though I haven't review the AutoDesk license, the case could be thrown out if it didn't) a prohibition on transfer of sales of the license to another entity. You, in fact, agree to this when you install software (or in the case of the A&E firm, sign a contract specifying you will agree to licensing terms in exchange for a license to use the software). Therefore, the A&E firm did not have the right to 'resell' the software (as they later conceded).

So, Vernor in this case didn't violate a license, because he never was licensed to use the software. Furthermore, even though he didn't agree to be bound by any license the fact that he puchased the software from someone who did not have a right to sell it as they did not own it (just the media, not the license to use). So, just like if you buy a stolen car and later find out it is stolen, you don't get to keep it and you certainly don't get to sell it.

For those who think software makers spend $0.99 duplicate a disk, they should look at the annual report of a software maker. Huge amounts of money are spent in R&D, to creat and provide the needed functionality, as well as everywhere else any other business spends their money. The fact is the cost incurred is not in duplicating the disks (we can all do that at home very cheaply), it is in creating the code that provides the benefit.

If you don't like the licensing terms, then simply don't use the software. Or, if a suitable GPL software is available, use that.

This will certainly go for appeal, and if the ruling stands that software is like books, you will indeed see prices rise, or other additonal contracts put in place where customers need to agree to the no-resale doctrine. Just look at the annual reports, enterprise software can't be produced and sold for profit at $0.99.